Prof. Vedrana Spajić-Vrkaš University of Zagreb Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Department of Education Croatia

Learning for intercultural dialogue: concepts and strategies paper prepared for the International seminar Intercultural Dialogue and Education jointly organised by the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Office for the National Minorities and the European Training Foundation Pula-Brijuni, Croatia, 17 - 19 September 2009

Introduction

Today’s child is born in the world of difference. His/her learning about that world begins with the perception of ‘things’ to which the words are attached. The words appear in certain contexts, are expressed in certain tones and are more or less overtly linked to certain types of behaviour or action. Through this network of stimuli the child learns not only to see the ‘things’ as different but to see them differently. He/she begins to understand that the key to adapting to the world of difference is not so much in seeing the different forms and colours of ‘things’ but in seeing them ‘properly’, i.e., in line with their socially and culturally accepted meanings. If the meaning attached to a particular ‘thing’ is value laden in a way that it is seen either as beneficial or harmful for the well-being of the individual and the society, the action towards the ‘thing’ would differ. While the ‘good’ ones would be actively taken care of, the ‘bad’ ones would be avoided and, if interpreted as egzistentially damaging, destroyed. Such patterns are strengthened by socialization, including schooling, through which the child learns about different ‘things’ as good, neutral or bad and begins to behave accordingly. If the pattern is deeply rooted in the structure of the society the child belongs to and remains unchallenged throughout his/her life, it becomes the core of his/her worldview in which different ‘things’ are ‘properly’ seen and understood as essentially unequal and, thus, ‘justly’ hierarchically ordered. Such worldview is detrimental when different ‘things’ are different human beings.

There have been abundant examples of individual and collective human suffereing caused by the hierarchies and barriers established among people throughout the history. The tragedy of Ms Saartjie Baartman, a South African !Kung women known as the ‘Hotentot Venus’ is an

1 astonishing example. She was brought to Europe in the beginning of the 19th century as a ‘creature’ essentially different from the ‘civilised’ human beings. The difference was not so much grounded on her skin colour and shape of her body but on her ‘primitive mind’. A widely shared conviction that was supported by scientific ‘proofs’ was that the ‘primitive mind’ was unable for rational thinking and moral reasoning. Due to her ‘inborn deficiences’, Ms Baartman could not have been treated with dignity and rights by the ‘civilised’. She was a mere ‘living thing’ for trade, public amusement and/or scientific inquiry.

Understanding that actions towards the different in one culture depends on the meaning the members of that culture attach to a specific difference that is proclaimed important in a particular historical context, makes the background upon which we intend to discuss the conceptual and strategic issues of learning for intercultural dialogue. In the paper we shall attempt to demonstrate that intercultural dialogue as a concept and a strategy has appeared only recently, particularly in the European political discourses, as a new solution to a long-lasting challenge of accommodating to the different; that it is seen as a important tool for the integration and strengthening of culturally diverse democratic societies in a post-assimilation era in which profound changes in the normative conceptualisation of citizenship have been undertaken; that its viability depends on what and how we both learn about and act towards our own and other cultures; that such learning needs to be situated primarily in schools and universities in which it will be strengthened through transformative intercultural education programmes based on the principles of human rights, equality, active citizenship, cultural pluralism and social cohesion (‘unity in diversity’); and that the success of integration of such programmes in the European systems of education presupposes a series of complex changes ranging from reviewing the key educational concepts at the level of poliy, practice and theory to altering curricula and school organisation.

What is intercultural dialogue?

To the Council of Europe the dialogue has been the key to its successful policy-making for over half the century. Consequently, the institution sees intercultural dialogue as the key to development of an inclusive culturally diverse Europe. In its most recent strategic document ‘White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue’, which is importantly sub-titled “Living Together as Equals in Dignity”, intercultural dialogue is defined as “a process that comprises an open and respectful exchange of views between individuals and groups with different ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds and heritage, on the basis of mutual understanding and respect” (Council of Europe 2008:9). It is said that intercultural dialogue serves to “promote a deeper understanding of diverse worldviews and practices, to increase cooperation and participation (or the freedom to make choices), to allow personal growth and transformation, and to promote tolerance and respect for the other.” As such, it fosters not only equality and human dignity but a sense of common purpose and, thus, contributes to political, cultural and economic integration, and social cohesion.

2 The dialogue is essential for the European Union, too. Its open method of coordination, an important instrument of the Lisbon strategy, promotes voluntary cooperation of member states in defining objectives and establishing measuring instruments in different areas. Its recent actions aiming at promoting dialogue at the level of the European societies were the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. The former was proclaimed in 2007 as a means to raise awareness among the European citizens of their rights to equal treatment and to freedom from discrimination. The later was launched in 2008 with a view to contribute to strategic priorities of the European Union, such as cultural diversity, solidarity, social justice and social cohesion, by promoting «a deeper and more structured intercultural dialogue» and by enhancing relevant competencies. In particular, the Year was meant to assist the European citizens and non-citizens «to acquire the knowledge and abilities to deal with a more open and more complex environment and to raise their awareness of the importance of developing an active European citizenship that is open to the world, respectful of cultural diversity and based on common values».

In the same year the European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (ERICart)1 condacted a study on national approaches to intercultural dialogue for the European Commission in which the definition of intercultural dialogue resembled the one of the Council of Europe. Here, too, intercultural dialogue is understood as a process of “an open and respectful exchange or interaction between individuals, groups and organisations with different cultural backgrounds or world views” (European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research 2008: XIII). It presupposes a culture- sensitive environment in which “a person is guaranteed safety and dignity, equality of opportunity and participation, where different views can be voiced openly without fear, where there are shared spaces for exchanges between different cultures to take place” (p. III).

The ‘open spaces’ for intercultural dialogue, the term used in the White Paper, and the ‘shared spaces’, the term used in the ERICart’s report, are not dependent on any specific location. They are instituted as open forums wherever there is the need for discussion, exchange and negotiation on social issues which are seen, understood and valued differently. Based on the principles of human rights, especially free (self)expression and choice, equality, participation and mutual respect for the individual dignity, the ‘open spaces’ make available different perspectives to be articulated without barriers and shared without biases in order to be better understood and, as such, more productively incorporated in the overall culture of the society.

If conducted in such a way, it is further argued in the White Paper, intercultural dialogue becomes an important instrument for enhancing the cohesion of culturally diverse democratic societies. By empowering people for (self)expression, by limiting (self)expression on the basis of the human rights rule and by facilitating coalition-building across diverse cultural and religious communities, intercultural dialogue may significantly contribute to reducing social tensions and conflicts rooted in diverse cultural perspectives and worldviews. The horizontal power-sharing which is established through the open spaces of intercultural dialogue does not merely reduce stereotypes

1 The web-site of the Institute is http://www.ericarts.org.

3 and prejudices in the public and political discourses but, moreover, challenges structural bases of inequality and discrimination leading to a more inclusive and just society.

Why has intercultural dialogue been recognised as a key social tool only recently?

If intercultural dialogue is so important a tool for strengthening our culturally diverse societies, it is important to answer why, for decades, it had existed as a mere theoretical concept and a rhetorical political tool and why it was only recently defined as a political priority for which adequate implementation models are still searched for. How is it possible, that something so vital for the development of democratic societies was left without normative and institutional support for so long?

In order to attempt to put more lights on this issue we shall embark on a brief historical analysis of a process through which the intercultural dialogue has slowly emerged as an important formative instrument for balancing diverse cultural claims as the basis for strengthening democratic societies in the West. As it has been stated earlier in this paper, our main argument is that intercultural dialogue became possible only after a series of complex changes grounded on the idea of cultural pluralism had been successfully accomplished. Put it in another way, the dialogue with the culturally different understood as the dialogue with the equal was only possible when the attribution to the culturally different had shifted from social anomaly and threat to social value and richness. This could have happened only after cultural pluralism had replaced the monocutural paradigm, and only then the issue of learning, especially through education, for a productive living in a culturally diverse society could have been raised.

We shall follow the process through four interrelated ‘stages’ metaphorically termed: the Golden Ages of Ignorance; the Disturbing Ages of (political) Rhetoric; the Promising Ages of Accommodation, and the Challenging Ages of Exchange (Spajic-Vrkas 2004)2. The stages represent a gradual development in relation to the different on the basis of three criteria: recognition, (self)representation and respect. In this chapter we shall discuss the first three and leave the last stage for a later discussion.

In the Golden Ages of Ignorance the different was neither recognised in dignity and rights nor respected. It was represented solely by the dominant culture through the use of a dual code of ‘a savage’ vs.‘the Civilised’ (Jahoda 1999). The code was deeply rooted in evolutionism and social Darwinism, which promoted the idea of a uni-linear biological, social and cultural evolution. According to evolutionary discourses inequalities among people were biologically given and could have not been changed by social action. Since the race was accepted as a biological fact, racial inequality and discrimination were integrated into the structure of society and were seen not as racism but as a socially appropriate pattern of behaviour towards the racially different (this is why

2 The first three stages were described in the paper referred above, while the fourth has been added by the author for the purpose of the present paper.

4 Ms. Baartman could have not been treated in the beginning of the 19th centur as ‘a living human being’ but as ‘a living thing’). Thus, social actions, including education, were aimed at reproducing existing relations, and education served that purpose by applying strategies of denial, segregation and discrimination against the different. After the WW2 the evolutionary paradigm was replaced by structural-functionalism which stressed the primacy of the society as a whole over its parts. Since cultural differences could not ‘fit’ into the dominant cultural framework (the whole) they were interpreted in terms of social anomaly and seen as a threat to society causing the persistence of discrimination based on culture.

In the Disturbing Ages of (political) Rhetoric the previous dual code was, especially in the United States (Novak 1971), replaced by less pejorative terms: ‘the mainstreamer’ and ‘the ethnic’,. The shift was fuelled by a new understanding of the human beings and cultural differences enshrined in the post-WW2 international documents that were based on the idea of equal human worth and dignity irrespective of race, skin colour, ethnicity, religion, language or some other ascriptive characteristics. Consequently, the discrimination on the basis of cultural difference became inconsistent with the core human rights principles brought about by the international political consensus. Since the international recognition of the culturally different as equal in rights and dignity meant that cultural pluralism was acknowledged as the grounding principle for social action at all levels, including the states’ legal systems and the systems of education, the process of change was seen by some as a means of disuniting the society (Schlesinger, 1992). The most sensitive issue was the legal recognition of the inalienable rights of those who had previously been discriminated on the basis of their cultural membership, as this touched upon the very core of the well-established and well-legitimised hierarchies of human groups. This is why this period was characterised by a lot of confusion in matters of recognition, (self)representation and respect, and why education at national level remained largely unchallenged despite number of international programmes and actions in this field. Namely, the international human rights standards and their regional implementation, recognised the different, as Charles Tylor (1994) points out, in his/her sameness or equality with the members of the dominant group (equal human rights, equal citizenship status, etc.), while the issue of recognition of the different in his/her unique cultural identity, was put aside, partly due to a still strong impact of assimilationism.

The issue of cultural identity was in the heart of the Promising Ages of Accommodation. The new conceptualisation of difference emerged in the context of the majority and minority membership, while the equal status was solved through its association with citizenship. The changes were promoted by social movements, as well as by international and European organisations, the Council of Europe in particular. The governments were held responsible for dealing with the raise in xenophobia, racism, intolerance, social exclusion and marginalisation of the different which led to important changes in national legal systems and public policies, including for education. Apart from recognition, the states were urged to open the spaces for active participation and self- representation of the different, as well as to actively promote respect for cultural diversity among their citizens. Notwithstanding, the changes were rather superficial until formulated explicitely in the terms of multicultural/intercultural policies based on the principles of rights, equality and pluralism (Rex 1995). They provided for cultural differences to be seen as a social contribution

5 and not as a social anomaly and, thus, to be respected and nurtured as the very core of the citizen’s identity. This, in turn, had a profound impact on education (see, e.g., OECD 1987; 1989), since it raised the question on how to prepare young people for challenges of living in a society of difference. The answer was the promotion of intercultural/multicultural education but very soon the question emerged on what type(s) of programme should have been implemented to serve new social needs.

The trouble with terms

Before we focus on that question it is necessary to explain the key concepts in this field. The problem a reader of intercultural education literature is often faced with is the lack of conceptual clarity and precision. In theoretical, policy and practical discourses the terms ‘cultural difference’, ‘cultural diversity’, ‘cultural pluralism’, ‘multiculturalism’/’interculturalism’ and ‘multicultural education’/’intercultural education’ are often used as interdependent terms. Although it is not necessarily wrong, the delineation of the terms contributes to our understanding of historical struggle through which the concepts emerged and became interlinked.

The term ‘cultural difference’, as discussed above, refers to an empirical fact which is grasped through perception. The term ‘cultural pluralism’ stands for an idea, perspective or the principle which guides the organisation of difference. It came forward as the consequence of the acceptance of the idea of cultural relativism through which the hierarchical ordering of cultures was refuted. It refers not to an empirical fact but to a social attitude towards the fact. The term ‘cultural diversity’ is a code which brings together the fact of cultural difference and the idea of cultural pluralism. It indicates that cultural differences are accepted as an important feature of social set-up. Although ‘multiculturalism’/’interculturalism’ is often defined as similar with cultural pluralism, it is more useful to link it to a policy project which was formulated only after the idea of cultural pluralism had been adopted. If understood in such a way, it may be defined as a policy framework for organising social action in line with the idea of cultural pluralism. Consequently ‘multicultural education’/’intercultural education’ refers to a particular field of social action. It is a strategic instrument for turning the policy on difference based on the idea of cultural pluralism into reality.

Finally, the equation of terms ‘multicultural and ‘intercultural’, in their various combinations might lead us to ignore their different contexts. The term ‘multicultural’ emerged ‘from below’ during 1960s-1970s in the English-speaking countries, in particular the United States. Its conceptualisation and institutionalization, e.g., in education has been an integral part of the Civil Rights Movement, as well as of the Supreme Court’s decision in cases of racial discrimination in education. The term ‘intercultural’ appeared more ‘from above’ during the 1970s and 1980s as a response to specific problems faced by Western European countries. Its conceptualisation and institutionalization have been tightly interwoven with the development of a common European

6 policy on protecting the rights of national minorities and migrant workers, which has been one of the political priorities of the Council of Europe since its establishment.3

Is intercultural/multicultural education an appropriate framework for learning intercultural dialogue?

Intercultural/multicultural education means different things to practitioners who work in different educational settings, to scientists who come from different disciplines and to policy-makers who support different political ideologies. These differences are reflected in a wide variety of aims and objectives, as well as concepts, contents and methods used in intercultural/multicultural programmes in both formal and informal education (see, e.g., Gibson 1976; Lynch, 1986; Sleeter 1991; Sleeter and Grant 1993; Banks 1994; Banks and McGee Banks 1995; Fennes and Hapgood 1997; Burnett 1998; Nieto 2003; Gollnick and Chinn 2006; Council of Europe 2008; European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research 2008). Some of the programmes described in educational literature are not typically thought of as multicultural education. This is why the question on whether intercultural/multicultural programmes are appropriate for the task of promoting learning for intercultural dialogue, is not trivial at all.

Some years ago Helmut Fennes and Karen Hapgood (1997:42) made the following distinction while discussing the approaches to intercultural learning: - intercultural learning that strengthens the co-existence of native and migrant population through programmes designed to address cultural conflict and, in particular, raise awareness about their cultural origins and dimensions; - intercultural learning that strengthens the awareness of cultural diversity as social enrichment through programmes designed to develop cultural awareness, broaden perception and increase empathy.

In one of the earliest attempts at the classification of multicultural education programmes in the United States based on the underlying values, change strategies, intended outcomes and target population criteria Margaret A. Gibson (1976) distinguished five broad approaches: - education of the culturally different or benevolent multiculturalism; - education about cultural differences or cultural understanding; - education for cultural pluralism; - bicultural education; - multicultural education as the normal school experience.

3 These concepts are also dealt with in the report of the European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research Sharing Diversity (European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research 2008), as well as in the Council of Europe's White Paper (Council of Europe 2008). A valuable analysis of the concepts 'multiculturalism' and 'interculturalism' has been made by James Lynch (1986).

7 Drawing mainly from the early European initiatives, James Lynch (1986) identified three underlying ideologies that motivated attempts to implement intercultural education as a response to ‘the migration problem’. The classification was based on six criteria: the implicit value orientation, major aims, the approach to the issue of language, curricula, the view of the structure of education, and the approach to the control of education. The three groups of ideologies were: enhancing economic efficiency; promoting equality of educational opportunity on the basis of existing structures and philosophies; and developing interdependence and partnership by means of negotiation and social discourse.

A widely known typology by James A. Banks (1994; see also Burnett 1998) encompasses three broad categories of programmes: - Content oriented programmes aim primarily at promoting multiperspectiveness by means of including contents about different cultural groups in the school curricula and teaching materials. In practice they are often reduced to cosmetic changes, such as the celebration of ethnic holidays or to the study of one or more ethnic/minority groups in which anthropological concept of the culture-unit is applied. - Student oriented programmes, also known as compensatory or transitional programmes (the Gibson’s benevolent multiculturalism approach), are a tool for achieving the principle of equal educational opportunity. They aim at providing support to culturally and linguistically different students to make transition into the regular classes and, thus, to improve their academic performance by adapting the teaching materials and methods of instruction to the students’ learning styles. In practice they are often reduced to language learning. - Socially oriented programs encompasses programs designed both to restructure and desegregate schools and to promote intercultural communication by means of enhancing knowledge about different culture, promoting tolerance and reducing cultural biases. They focus on both school curricula and the cultural and political contexts of schooling with a view to strengthen 'human relations' in education.

According to Banks (1995) multicultural education is a dynamic and multidimensional process, not a static affair. It changes over time. The inclusion starts with the contribution approach – level 1 (occasional celebration of ethnic heroes, heroines, holidays, foods etc.). It is followed by the additive approach – level 2 (new concepts, contents and lessons are added to the curriculum without changing its structure). At level 3 the transformation approach comes forward (the curriculum structure is changed to include the perspectives and worldviews of diverse ethnic and cultural groups). Finally, at level 4 the action approach becomes dominant (students make decisions on various issues and take actions to contribute to solving them).

The complexity of multicultural education Banks (1997) describes by referring to the following five overlapping dimensions:

8 - content integration (inclusion of materials, concepts, and values from a variety of cultures in instruction); - knowledge construction (the recognition that all knowledge, including of teachers and students, is socially constructed and, thus, can be challenged and reconstructed); - prejudice reduction (the change of attitudes towards ‘the Other’: different racial, ethnic and religious groups, persons with disabilities and sexual minorities); - equity pedagogy (altering teaching methods to accommodate to students of a diverse cultural background with a view to enhance their academic achievement), and - empowering school culture and social structure (the creation of an enabling context for teaching and learning to encourage the development of all students).

Banks (1995: xi) argues that the major aim of multicultural education is not only to create equal educational opportunities for culturally diverse students but to create opportunities for all students “to acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function effectively in a pluralistic democratic society and to interact, negotiate, and communicate with peoples from diverse groups in order to create a civic and moral community that works for the common good”.

To Christine E. Sleeter (1991) multicultural education is primarily not a matter of intercultural awareness, tolerance or prejudice reduction but of social activism and reconstruction. Social reconstruction programs are social-action-oriented. They are designated to promote cultural pluralism and equality, the rule of law, and peaceful conflict resolution by developing critical thinking, assertivity and argumentative reasoning, as well as the awareness of oppressive social structures, their roots and consequences. Writing in the best tradition of critical pedagogy she argues that multicultural education is a form of resistance to dominant modes of schooling and that multicultural education curriculum is primarily “an emancipatory curriculum that raises questions, invites debate and engages students in critical thought”.

In the book that she published together with Carl A. Grant (Sleeter and Grant 2003) she developed a typology of multicultural education approaches that extends the classifications described above by focusing on the issue of students’ empowerment for social change.4

The Sleeter-Grant typology encompasses the following five approaches:

- teaching the exceptional and culturally different (helping students fit into the society); - human relations (promoting students’ self-concepts, tolerance and acceptance within a society, reduce stereotypes and prejudices); - single-group studies (promoting equality and recognition of a particular group or groups); - multicultural education (promoting social equality, equality of opportunity and respect for the culturally different, i.e, cultural pluralism by organising the content of such programmes around the contributions and perspectives of diverse cultural groups and by

4 The term ‘empowerment’ refers to what Peter McLaren calls “the process through which students learn critically appropriate knowledge existing outside their immediate experience in order to broaden their understanding of themselves, the world, and the possibilities for transforming the taken-for-granted assumptions about the way we live” (cited from Sleeter 1991:3).

9 examining how ethnicity/race, socio-economic status, and gender inequities occur in the various sectors of society); - education that is multicultural and social reconstructionist (actively promoting social change to alter the position of the different and the oppressed by organising curriculum around contemporary issues of social justice and by promoting the dialogue, power- sharing and self-determination).

An empirical test of the Sleeter-Grant typology has been done by Washburn, Brown and Abbott (1996) by means of the analysis of multicultural education programmes from 255 school districts. The criteria for analysis were social goals, school goals, curriculum aims and instructional aims. The findings reveal that the first three approaches are actually non-multicultural since they are designated to help students accept the status quo. The writers argue that while teaching the exceptional and culturally different approaches allows students to fit into and accept an Anglo- conformist social structure the human relations approach helps them feel good about it. Further, the single-group studies can by no means be designated multicultural, either. Contrary to it, schools following the last two approaches are more likely to engage their students in the study of the community issues and in interaction with the community organizations, involve minority parents in school decision-making, have an inter-racial school council, target all students for multicultural education programmes, have diversity-based staffing patterns, use library materials that reflect diversity, be involved in local community action projects, have community and students involved in school decision-making, have a bilingual curriculum, and have in-service teacher training in multicultural education.

The above analysis makes it clear that not all intercultural/multicultural education programmes are intercultural in a sense that they promote the idea of cultural pluralism by means of intercultural communication, dialogue and negotiation. Unfortunately, a great deal of such programmes is still designed for minority students while only few foster their self-empowerment on the basis of awareness of the role their cultures plays in changing the mainstream cultures. In many cases, minority cultures are reduced to few cultural traits, and stereotypised in their presentation and interpretation. Such programmes often end up in celebrating ethnic exclusivity by means of food preparation, wearing folk costumes or using specific symbols on ethnic holidays. This is not a festivity of diversity but a folklore of separation and it has its counter-part in intercultural/multicultural education programmes designed for both majority and minority students that aim to develop understanding and empathy for the poor, underdeveloped and non-Western cultures. Similar rhetoric of integration can also be found in those programmes that transmit information to both majority and minority students on how minorities have changed under the influence of the majority culture, and not vice versa. As such, these programmes become a tool for promoting the so-called ‘ethnocentric multiculturalism’ or ‘multicultural ethnocentrism’ that divert the principle of cultural pluralism either by strengthening cultural monologues or by introducing cosmetic changes into the dominant school culture.

The lack of intercultural dialogue may be the reason why students belonging to ‘other’ cultures sometimes oppose intercultural/multicultural education classes. Knowledge they receive there may

10 not correspond to knowledge which they already posses and which is of importance to them. In situation in which only a dominant culture is ‘exchanged’, as Alison Jones argues (1992), the idea of intercultural togetherness and inter-cultural dialogue may have no positive meaning to them. These intercultural/multicultural programmes change nothing or very little. Culturally different students remain mere receivers of the discourses of domination. They actually forge the students belonging to other cultures to continue perceiving themselves as ‘the other’ which is the reson why these students seek for separation.

Discontent of the culturally different students with intercultural/multicultural education programmes is the main reason why we have termed the contemporary era of accommodating to cultural differences the Challenging Ages of Exchange. Although we have come a long way ahead since the Golden Ages of Ignorance, we are still unequipped for dialogue.

Why do some intercultural/multicultural education programmes fail to address the dialogue?

We have argued above that intercultural/multicultural education is an answer to the challenges the learner and the society are faced with as a consequence of the adoption of the idea of cultural pluralism and the recognition of the culturally different. We have also demonstrated a great variety in terminology and conceptualisation of intercultural/multicultural education. Which model will be chosen and to what extent a particular model will promote cultural diversity depends primarily on its perspective. The perspective functions as a conceptual framework. It sets the rules for how we should see and understand the different, how cultural diversity should be promoted and prepare to prepare to behave accordingly. The following three perspectives help us understand why some intercultural programmes fail to promote the key tool for the stability and development of the contemporary culturally complex societies – the intercultural dialogue.

In the context of the monocultural perspective the differences are seen as a transitional social quality, a set of particular cultural practices that have the only value in reference to the past but not to the future. This is because the differences are expected to be ‘naturally’ weakened in the course of time. This perspective is often reflected in educational objectives, such as: to equalise educational opportunities for a culturally or linguistically different student or to assist such student in making transition into the educational mainstream. Intercultural/multicultural programmes based on this perspective target only students belonging to minority groups who experience school failure due to the phenomenon of home-school discontinuity. This is the reason why these programmes are referred to as a ‘benevolent assimilationism’. Most of the programmes are student-oriented: they neither alter the content of the curriculum nor do they seek to transform the school. Typical models are education for culturally different students, Inter-group Education Movement, transitional education, earlier approaches to bicultural or bilingual education, and the English as a Second Language – ESL.

11 The multicultural perspective allows for cultural differences to be seen as social reality, as something that is ‘there to stay’. It is reflected in educational objectives that primarily seek to challenge ethnocentrism, cultural stereotypes and prejudices. The task is accomplished by removing the politically incorrect contents from the school curricula and textbooks, by including information about different cultural groups, by developing tolerance or intercultural sensitivity and, in some more advanced cases, by addressing racism and discrimination. The programmes are content-oriented and designed for both minority and majority students. Examples which are described in literature are education about cultural differences, education for cultural understanding, single-group studies, recent versions of bicultural or bilingual education, and earlier approaches to development education.

The intercultural perspective differs from the previous two in the way that it promotes the idea of cultural differences as a social value, richness or strength. However, if it leads to a descriptive or explicatory discourse it does not differ significantly from the multicultural perspective. A true intercultural perspective sets the ground for critical multicultural/intercultural education based on the principles of critical pedagogy. It links cultural diversity to equality and social justice, as the cornerstones of a democratic society. The programmes based on this perspective are community- oriented. They seek to empower the students belonging to both the minority and the majority to resist injustice by improving their critical thinking, problem-solving and conflict management skills, by developing their awareness of different cultural perspectives, by encouraging them for dialogue and cooperation, and by preparing them for social action. Thus, they are oriented toward changing the contents of the curriculum, the teaching methods, the assessment strategies, as well as the organisation and culture of school. The approaches that belong to this group are education for social reconstruction, education for empoverment, education for intercultural dialogue, anti- racist education, border pedagogy, and the pedagogy of resistance.

Intercultural/multicultural education centred on learning for intercultural dialogue

If intercultural/multicultural education should serve the citizens of the culturally plural societies efficiently, it must critically review its purpos, aims, contents and strategies. There is no need to argue that it should assist all students to develop their understanding of different cultures, including their own, support the expression of their cultural identities, foster their comprehension and acquisition of different perspectives and worldviews, help them counter their cultural stereotypes and prejudices, strengthen their respect for the culturally different and for the cultural diversity of their societies and the world, deepen their understanding of the causes and consequences of inequality and discrimination based on culture, as well as of conflicts fuelled by primordialist ideologies, improve their comprehension of the interplay of global and local forces in shaping their life, and promote their understanding of the role they can play as active democratic citizens in improving their lives.

12 Yet, the achievement of these cognitive tasks is only a part of what intercultural/multicultural education should do. Equally important are skills and dispositions, in particular the ones that are linked to the openness of perception, multiperspectiveness, critical and argumentative thinking, participation in decision-making, working in teams, assertiveness, conflict-management, and strategic planning, as well as adherence to key democratic principles and values.

Learning for intercultural dialogue means change. It is linked to a whole set of new competencies of which very little is known (see, e.g., Deardorff 2006). Thus, the literature on intercultural competency (Taylor 1994), intercultural sensitivity (Bennett 1993), intercultural communication (Wiseman 2002), intercultural adaptation, acculturation attitude etc. should be integrated into the body of knowledge on intercultural education that focuses on interaction, dialogue and negotiation. A dialogue-centred intercultural/multicultural education should also be informed by critical educational discourses (Shor 1980; Giroux 1985; Aronowitz and Giroux 1991; McLaren 1995; Nieto 2003; Apple 2004), especially the ones developed in the context of the dialogic and engaged pedagogy, as well as the pedagogy of emancipation and empowerment. Also, the theory and practice of intercultural/multicultural education should rely more on school culture (ethos, atmosphere) research, which confirm a strong influence of school norms, values and relations on the student's satisfaction and success.

Finally, intercultural/multicultural education for intercultural dialogue must be conceptualised and implemented in full compliance with the principles of human rights, equality and non- discrimination. It provides for such education to be linked to human rights education, education for social justice and engagement, education for social change, anti-racist and anti-prejudice education, education for peaceful conflict resolution and education for active and responsible citizenship. It is only through the integration of these approaches that a socially relevant step forward in the preparation of children and youth for life in a culturally plural democratic society can be expected.

References

Apple, M.W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge. Aronowitz, S. and Giroux, H.A. (1991). Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Banks, J. A. (1994). An Introduction to Multicultural Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Banks, J. A. (1995). “Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice.” In: J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (eds.) Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 3-24. Banks, J. A. (1997). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks and C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 385-407).

13 Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (ed.). Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed.). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Burnett, G. (1998). Varieties of Multicultural Education: An Introduction. ERIC Digest 98, ED372146 (available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-1/multicultural.htm) Council of Europe (2008). White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue “Living Together As Equals in Dignity”, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, doc. CM(2008)30 final. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). “Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student Outcome of Internationalization”, Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 3, 241-266. European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (2008). Sharing Diversity: National Approaches to Intercultural Dialogue in Europe (Study for the European Commission), Bonn and Helsinki: European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (ERICarts). Fennes, H., & Hapgood, K. (1997). Intercultural learning in the classroom: Crossing borders. London: Cassell. Gibson, M. A. (1976). "Approaches to multicultural education in the United States: Some concepts and assumptions", Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 7(4): 7-18. Giroux, H. (1985). Theory and Resistance in Pedagogy. South Hadley: Bergin and Garvin. Gollnick, D. M. and Chinn, P.C. (2006). Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society. Wharton School Publihing. Jahoda, G. (1999). Images of Savages: Ancient Roots of Modern Prejudice in Western Culture, London: Routledge. Jones, A. (1999). "The limits of cross-cultural dialogue: Pedagogy, desire, and absolution in the classroom", Educational Theory, 49(3): 299-316. Lynch, J. (1986). Multicultural Education: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge. Lynch, E. W. and Hanson, M. J. (1998). Developing Cross-cultural Competence: A guide for working with children and families. Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole. McLaren, P. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era. London: Routledge. Nieto, S. (2003). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. Addison-Wesley. Novak, M. (1971). The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics. New York: Macmillan. OECD (1989). One School, Many Cultures. Paris: OECD. OECD/CERI (1987). Multicultural Education. Paris: OECD. Rex, J. (1995). “Multiculturalism in Europe and America.” Nations and Nationalism, 1(2) 243-259 Schlesinger, A., Jr. (1992). The Disunity of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. W.W. Norton. Shor, I. (1980). Critical Teaching in Everyday Life. Boston: South End Press.

14 Sleeter, C. E. (ed.) (1991). Empowerment through Multicultural Education. Alabama, N.Y, State University of New York Press. Sleeter, C. E., and Grant, C.A. (1993). Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five Approaches to Race, Class and Gender (2nd ed.). New York: Merrill. Spajic-Vrkas, V. (2004). "The emergence of multiculturalism in education: From ignorance to separation through recognition.” In: M. Mesic (ed.) Experience and Perspectives of Multiculturalism: Croatia in Comparison to Other Multicultural Societies. Zagreb: FFPress i Croatian Commission for UNESCO, 87-101. Taylor, C. (1994). "The Politics of Recognition." In A. Gutmann (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press. Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly, 44, 3, 154-174. Washburn, D. E.; Brown, N. L. and Abbott, R. W. (1996). Multicultural Education in the United States. Bloomsburg, PA, Inquiry International. Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B. Gudykunst and B. Mody (Eds.) International and intercultural communication (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.), 207-224.

15